D&D 5E Allow the Long Rest Recharge to Honor Skilled Play or Disallow it to Ensure a Memorable Story

[hawkeyefan]

@Crimson Longinus

I disagree. I don’t see how your view is allowing for different priorities or the different kinds of play that result from focusing on those priorities.

And I feel your unwillingness to acknowledge motive as the relevant factor will prevent us from ever reaching agreement.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@Crimson Longinus

I disagree. I don’t see how your view is allowing for different priorities or the different kinds of play that result from focusing on those priorities.

And I feel your unwillingness to acknowledge motive as the relevant factor will prevent us from ever reaching agreement.

First of, you don't offer other motives. It is just one chooses one option for this particular story state, other chooses the other thing (that produces differnt story state) for... Why?

And as I have said, because this is subjective decision making, differnt motives may lead to same choice anyway, and same motive to different choices, so from the perspective of the players it doesn't even matter.

The bottom line is, that the GM makes choices, and those choices lead to certain story directions. It really doesn't matter if they chose that direction because their horoscope told them to, it's still an intentional choice to take story into that direction.

 

[pemerton]

This doesn't make any sense to me. Did events happen, were those events described, were there characters who had personality and motivations, did those characters do things and have discussions? That's a story. Possibly an incoherent one, but a story nonetheless.

Which bit doesn't make sense?

Our AD&D games were story-free. The PCs had no personalities beyond their players playing their alignments and classes, with one exception where the player added a little bit of flair on top of that. (Ie they were traditional AD&D PCs.) One of the sessions was a randomly generated dungeon, the other X2; in both rooms were described and explored, and some NPCs/creatures interacted with.

I Googled "definition of story" and got the following:

1.​

an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment.​

"an adventure story"​

Similar: tale, narrative, account, recital, anecdote, chronicle, history, yarn, spiel​

​

• a plot or storyline.​

"the novel has a good story"​

Similar: plot, storyline, scenario, chain of events, diegesis​

​

• a report of an item of news in a newspaper, magazine, or broadcast.​

"stories in the local papers"​

Similar: news item, news report, article, feature, piece, exclusive, exposé, spoiler, scoop​

​

• a piece of gossip; a rumour.​

"there have been lots of stories going around, as you can imagine"​

​

• a false statement; a lie.​

I don't think the last two dot points are very relevant to RPGing.

The first, and even moreso the second, are what I mean by story. The AD&D sessions that I played of course generated sequences of fictional events (or, if you prefer, accounts of imaginary people and events). But those were not told for entertainment; the entertainment did not consist in the account, in the plot, in the storyline. It would be inapposite to ask whether the sessions of play yielded a good story or a bad one; because the play was aimed at something else.

The second dot point is close to the notion of "war story" I used upthread, and of course in that sense one can give an account of what happened in the AD&D sessions.

The contrast between those sessions and (say) Burning Wheel or Prince Valiant sessions is marked and not coincidental.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Are you familiar with Hockey or American Football?

No.

These are sports with extreme structure. Hockey players in particular are repeatedly making the following post-game statement "we trusted our structure."

They are saying this because "their structure" is a set of principles, rules, and constraints that govern everyone's roles and responsibilities which gives them a certain sort of coherency of purpose and volition and (assuming they follow it, get good at it, and possess the requisite athletic/cognitive traits) prowess. If "someone goes rogue", they "lose the integrity of their structure." When they "lose the integrity of their structure", something else happens that doesn't proceed from the loop of "we trusted our structure" > "we followed our structure" > "reliably, x result occurred as a byproduct." That "something else" is virtually never good (particularly long term as a tendency to "go rogue" proliferates and people start not trusting other players to be where they're at and do what they're supposed to do...so "going rogue" is something of a "virus" in this case).

Now Hockey and American Football are not TTRPGs, but structure (and all of its properties and downstream effects on the constituent parts of the system) is structure...and "lack of structure" or "going rogue" is "lack of structure/going rogue"...even if "lack of structure/going rogue" is "working as intended." The two are not the same things in inputs, in the machinery of the process, in the experience of the process, and in outputs no matter whether its a ball sport or a combat sport or or a military op or planting a garden or setting up a traffic paradigm or setting up a system of governance or playing a game.

Simply having a system where the participants each have cognition isn't where things end. That is the starting point. What happens downstream of that cognition (primarily how answers to pressures and sensitivities emerge within a system and which ones are ultimately selected for) is where the interesting things happen.

And once those structures and principles are so water tight that no personal preferences or artistic visions affect the decision making you can just feed them into a computer and have it play an perfect RPG session not corrupted by dirty human intentions!

 

[hawkeyefan]

First of, you don't offer other motives. It is just one chooses one option for this particular story state, other chooses the other thing (that produces differnt story state) for... Why?

And as I have said, because this is subjective decision making, differnt motives may lead to same choice anyway, and same motive to different choices, so from the perspective of the players it doesn't even matter.

The bottom line is, that the GM makes choices, and those choices lead to certain story directions. It really doesn't matter if they chose that direction because their horoscope told them to, it's still an intentional choice to take story into that direction.

It very much does, I’d say. I think you’re very wrong.

You’re saying that predetermined story and emergent story are the same.

Would you say that Gygax was as concerned with story as the authors of modern adventure paths?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It very much does, I’d say. I think you’re very wrong.

You’re saying that predetermined story and emergent story are the same.

No. This whole discussion has ultimately been about emergent stories, it's just that I recognise that the GM's intentional decisions are amongst the things that influence the direction of that emergence, whereas others seem to think that the story magically appears out of nowhere without human intentions influencing it.

Would you say that Gygax was as concerned with story as the authors of modern adventure paths?

Adventure paths by their nature are very limited and railroady in their structure. And I really don't care what Gygax thought.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No. This whole discussion has ultimately been about emergent stories, it's just that I recognise that the GM's intentional decisions are amongst the things that influence the direction of that emergence

Of course the GM’s decisions affect what story emerges. No one is saying that they don’t.

What’s being said is that emergent story is different than curated story. Emergent story is what just happens from playing the game and letting things happen as they may. The GM is not steering the outcome toward some preconceived idea of story, Curated story means that the GM is actively not just letting things happen as they may, but is instead pushing toward some specific outcome.

They’re at odds.

whereas others seem to think that the story magically appears out of nowhere without human intentions influencing it.

I suppose it might seem like magic if you continually ignore when people explain it.

Adventure paths by their nature are very limited and railroady in their structure.

Yes, of course. Yet your argument seems to make no distinction between them and a form of play that is less railroady.

And I really don't care what Gygax thought.

That’s fine, but doesn’t answer the question. You don't have to care about what he thought to have a sense about what he prioritized in play.

Do you see a difference in priority between Gygax’s modules and modern adventure paths? One which perhaps touched on the idea of focusing on skilled play versus best storytelling?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Of course the GM’s decisions affect what story emerges. No one is saying that they don’t.

What’s being said is that emergent story is different than curated story. Emergent story is what just happens from playing the game and letting things happen as they may. The GM is not steering the outcome toward some preconceived idea of story, Curated story means that the GM is actively not just letting things happen as they may, but is instead pushing toward some specific outcome.

That's the thing. Often there is no such thing as 'let the things happen as they may'. That is the illusion I want to dispel. A human being is making decision about what's gonna happen, if they don't the game cannot proceed. There of course can be different degrees of directing the story, different amount of curation. However 'no curation at all' isn't a possible amount or there is no game.

Yes, of course. Yet your argument seems to make no distinction between them and a form of play that is less railroady.

The distinction is one of degree, not of kind.

That’s fine, but doesn’t answer the question. You don't have to care about what he thought to have a sense about what he prioritized in play.

Do you see a difference in priority between Gygax’s modules and modern adventure paths? One which perhaps touched on the idea of focusing on skilled play versus best storytelling?

I am not particularly familiar with modules new or old; I've been never been a fan. But yes, of course they can have different focuses on different aspects. But again, a difference of degree, not of kind.

 

[Manbearcat]

And once those structures and principles are so water tight that no personal preferences or artistic visions affect the decision making you can just feed them into a computer and have it play an perfect RPG session not corrupted by dirty human intentions!

When you say something like this...who do you think you're talking to? Me? Because you're not going to convince me of anything with this sort of statement. It not only doesn't remotely reflect the reality of the situation (how principled and proven structure imbues the "movespace" of the involved participants with clarity and explicit limits such that "going rogue" becomes something to be avoided) but it can't possibly be intended to convince me or the people who play games with me of something (no one who plays games with me will feel like their "dirty human intentions" or my "dirty human intentions" cease to propel play).

You're creating this ridiculously excluded middle of "bereft of creativity and utterly automated decision-tree navigation" and "(arbitrary - meaning unstructured/unprincipled) curation by fiat."

So who is this this intended for? Is there some audience in mind?

And do you have any sort of experience in your life with principled structure? If not athletics or martial arts or TTRPGs...somewhere else perhaps?

That's the thing. Often there is no such thing as 'let the things happen as they may'. That is the illusion I want to dispel. A human being is making decision about what's gonna happen, if they don't the game cannot proceed. There of course can be different degrees of directing the story, different amount of curation. However 'no curation at all' isn't a possible amount or there is no game.

No one is arguing this position. Its like you're trying to A-Bomb all nuance here.

How about this. If "curation" is the hill you're intent on dying on, you can have it. Insofar as "curation" can be definitionally seen as "navigating a decision-tree and choosing one thing vs another thing", ALL games possess curation by EVERY participant because everyone is navigating decision-trees and choosing one thing vs another thing."

HOWEVER...

there is a significant difference between (lets call it) "structured curation" where a hefty chunk of your decision-tree is pared away by way of said structure (the constituent parts of that structure constrain the permissible "move-space") and "unstructured curation" or "curation by fiat" that does little to no paring away of your decision-tree (like your example above where you, Crimson Longinus as GM, are good with both (a) denying a player their success on their move they succeeded at - actionable intelligence - while simultaneously (b) giving them a complication - now you've got reinforcements...such that next time they will be damn sure to just kill that kobold rather than sparing the kobold and making a social move).

I'm assuming you don't agree with that...

or suddenly you can just automate-by-way-of-computer the remaining decision-tree because my position must be that any "dirty human intentions" involved in the navigation of the remaining decision-tree....is...bad...or something?

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's the thing. Often there is no such thing as 'let the things happen as they may'. That is the illusion I want to dispel. A human being is making decision about what's gonna happen, if they don't the game cannot proceed. There of course can be different degrees of directing the story, different amount of curation. However 'no curation at all' isn't a possible amount or there is no game.

I don’t think “a human being is making a decision about what’s gonna happen” in non-curated play. They make a decision about something, but how that plays out and what ultimately happens is dependent upon much more than their choice; it’s dependent upon the choices of other participants and also upon the dice.

The GM in these cases isn’t choosing based on a desired outcome.

The distinction is one of degree, not of kind.

I don’t think that’s true. Gygax wasn’t a “storytelling DM”. His games, so far as we know about them and backed by the bulk of his written work, was about skilled play.

This doesn’t mean that stories didn’t emerge from his games. It means that play was not focused on the production of the story....it was focused on players using their resources to overcome obstacles and challenges.

I am not particularly familiar with modules new or old; I've been never been a fan. But yes, of course they can have different focuses on different aspects. But again, a difference of degree, not of kind.

Perhaps this lack of familiarity is a factor in why you’re not seeing more than one kind of play?

I would say check out the old modules, and then maybe a modern adventure and see how different they can be in a variety of ways. It would probably be informative.